About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
MSNBCW 5
CSPAN2 2
MSNBC 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN 1
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
or disagrees with the notion of gay marriage. in 1992 in roe v. wade he wrote our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. he's personally opposed to abortion, but voteded in the opposite. there's also in 1996, kennedy was ruling -- voter measure that repealed gay rights ordnances. he wrote the measure was born of on nosty towards gays. the constitution prohibits laws signalling out citizens for general hardships. those are pretty strong words that sound as though he's in the bag. >> i would never consider any justice in the bag, but i think justice kennedy has some very powerful liberty rulings to be proud of and this will be should he rule the right way, consistent with his jurisprudence of liberty. i think all these judges have to ask themselves knowing where the country's going, where the people are, do i want to be the last gasp of prejudice or stand on the right side of history. >> as a final question, now that the court will likely make the decision, if it's not the decision that you are seeking, would you be regretful that the movement decided
of the same-sex marriage issue, and that could result in what would eventually be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> we are back on a big story that will become an even bigger story when we move forward, and that's the question of marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the country. speaker gingrich, you oppose same-sex marriage. do you think the tide is turning? we know it's turning in terms of public opinion. what does it mean they are taking this on? >> the justices looked at the question, if you're an american citizen and you are legally married in iowa, what happens if you visit another state and you end up in the hospital? do you have any visitation rights? once this has begun to move, it is going -- it is so complicated that i think the court felt almost compelled as a national institution to look at it. >> and i think, lawrence, as i have talked to lawyers about this, what people need to understand is that there is the question of your ability to have benefits. this is not whether the defense of marriage act is completely thrown out. that is that question. and then prop 8 in ca
. and in 1973 when roe v wade was decided, abortion was legal in only four states. given the court's historic inclination to favor expansion of freedoms, even when public opinion is not on its side, it would seem plausible the justices will conform what a majority believe is right and up hold the constitutionality of marriage equality. if this is in fact the result, president obama will guide one of the last remaining civil rights battles to completion. a moment that may come to define his presidency as much as anything he has done to date. similarly on the subject of immigration, president obama has made clear that comprehensive immigration reform will happen in the next four years. stung by rue milluating losses at the polls in november, the gop understands the problems its faces among the young, the brown and the young and brown. the only question is just how long it takes the republican party to come to terms with this. if conservatives are smart they will try to find a seat at the table. less the president and the democratic party secure the votes of every single one of the 11.1 undocume
become more divisive than roe v. wade decision. this was troubling. ruth bader ginsburg who is one of the most liberal justices, she in february questioned the timing of the abortion decision and suggests it may have contributed to the on-going bitter debate about abortion. not that the judgment was wrong but it moved too far, too fast. that was from ginsburg. those are the things that make you worry. a little shpilka in my kinectazoid. chris perry who i love is a lot more selfish than i am. [ applause ] they could have gotten married today if they had not taken the course. she said as much as sandy and i want to be married we want everyone in the united states to be able to be married. we've learned to be patient of the process. what we wanted was the biggest boldest outcome as possible. that's still what i'm hoping for so there! [ applause ] hmm! that's what ted olson thinks. he knows a little something a little something a little something about law. joe in pittsburgh, you're on the "the stephanie miller show
and roe versus wade. he reached out in lawrence versus texas and grutter v. bollinger. those who don't want them to reach out in this case do want them to reach out anytime it helps their cause. maybe they even reached out in allen's case. my point is the court shouldn't just make things up. but they are, to a large extent, a policymaking body. that is what they do. they take cases and they decide broader principles. here we have a very serious problem that justifies a little stretching, not in my opinion to ban racial preferences, and went to socioeconomic components. every other institution in american society has failed to come to grips with this problem. the university systematically misleads applicants over how it works. no major politician has had a case of affirmative action more than 20 years -- excuse me, not 20, but 16 years. we are going to have racial preferences for the next hundred years or more unless the supreme court does something to slow down. >> a nonpolitical ranch of a policymaking body. say it ain't so. [applause] >> comments? >> i would like to talk about what
the women the right guaranteed to them by roe v. wade. even as the new herd presents your fresh faces, it's array of gender and versatility that we in nerdland will take each of you at face value. but will then move on quickly to ask what are your new ideas? at the table, matt welch is editor in chief of reason. editor in reason of chief magazine and the co-author of declaration of independence. conservative writer tara wall was a senior media adviser for. an associate professor of science at columbia university. a fellow at the roosevelt institute and manuel reyes. thanks for having you here. it's nice to have you. >>> tara, welcome to nerdland. >> how did i know you were coming to me first. >> now i would like you to explain your party. >> lay it all on the table. >> in a certain way, it's so early, i feel silly talking about it. but i do think it's important that we not sort of come out of a win as i've seen both parties do in midterm elections or general elections with this narrative, oh, the other party is over. this is the decisive election. i don't think we see anything like that.
to decide. they reached out in roe v. wade. they reached out in lawrence v. texas, the gay rights case. the people who don't want them to reach out in this case, many of them, do want them to reach out anytime it helps their cause. and maybe they even reached out in the chada case which is alan's case. and my point there is the court shouldn't just make things up, but they are to a large extent a policy-making body. it's evolved that way. that's what they do. they take cases, and they decide broader principles under those cases. and here we have a very serious problem that i think justifies a little stretching not, in my opinion, to ban racial preferences, but to impose the kind of remedies we suggest, transparency and a socioeconomic component. because as our book details, every other institution in american society has failed to come to grips with this problem. the universities systematically mislead applicants and the rest of the country over how it works. the politicians are terrified of it. no major politician has attacked affirmative action publicly in about 20 years. not 20, may
diminished by these activist judges. actually roe v. wade a took away the right to life. we encourage the culture of death by giving money to planned parenthood that kill more people. it's terrible what happened in connecticut, but unborn persons killed with the support of taxpayer money, these are persons, too. host heast your response. guest: i don't see the connection here. and of course, we have seen gun violence against those who actually do provide reproductive services and abortion services, gun violence against doctors. i don't see the connection between the two issues. i do think the respect for life is something we have built on in this country and that means different things to different people. i would respectfully disagree with you on the connection between gun violence and the opportunity for women and their families to make reproductive decisions independent of government intervention. host: chris in florida, democratic caller. caller: i used to hunt and i got rid of my guns. i believe there is one bill that should be put up there and that's that any agent of the federa
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)